Concise description:It is simply to allow a player to be several players in team games (doubles, trips and quads). That way, you could have two players palying one against each other in a quad game for example, they would just be players 1, 2, 3 and 4, or one player playing against a team. We may discuss if the option should be limited to sequential games or could be extended to freestyle games too.

Specifics/Details:Not a lot more to say. For points, I would imagine that the simplest would be to credit/take out twice, three times or four times the number of points when someone is playing for two, three or four players.[*]xxxxxxx[/list]

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:Obviously quads involve much more strategy than a simple one to one game. I think this could be a nice and simple option to create games where strategy would play a greater role. It would also allow for example two teammate to play quads against two other people or against four![*]xxxxxxx[/list]

Forgive me, but I don't understand the new terminology... If a suggestion is submitted, whether that means it's on ToDo list, or not?If the answer is NO, why we still didn't hear Luck, after SO much time and SO many posts?If the answer is YES, I'm the happiest person on CC, at the very moment

Zemljanin wrote:Forgive me, but I don't understand the new terminology... If a suggestion is submitted, whether that means it's on ToDo list, or not?If the answer is NO, why we still didn't hear Luck, after SO much time and SO many posts?If the answer is YES, I'm the happiest person on CC, at the very moment

Basically submitted means it has enough support for Lack to take a serious look at it. At that point he can decide to do it or not. It just helps keep down the work load for lack.

Zemljanin wrote:Forgive me, but I don't understand the new terminology... If a suggestion is submitted, whether that means it's on ToDo list, or not?If the answer is NO, why we still didn't hear Luck, after SO much time and SO many posts?If the answer is YES, I'm the happiest person on CC, at the very moment

Basically submitted means it has enough support for Lack to take a serious look at it. At that point he can decide to do it or not. It just helps keep down the work load for lack.

Yeah there is no "to-do " list anymore, since they figured out most of the to-do list never gets do'd.

well i read all in first post,but one thing confused me most,and no clarification in first post.If you play pl1-pl1-pl1 against pl2-pl3-p4 (these is what i understand its proposed), how will be point distribution for winner?

qwert wrote:well i read all in first post,but one thing confused me most,and no clarification in first post.If you play pl1-pl1-pl1 against pl2-pl3-p4 (these is what i understand its proposed), how will be point distribution for winner?

That is not part of the suggestion (I believe). It was something that was discussed within the thread, but this suggestion is just for the p1-p1-p1 vs. p2-p2-p2, type of games.

Concise description: The option to play as multiple armies when playing 1v1.

Specifics/Details:

When playing 1v1, having the option of making it a "doubles" game. Where you control both players. Currently, 1v1on most maps is mostly luck. However, if you could only control half your army and then your opponent could control half of his army and then you, your half, and then your opponent, his half. The game would be much more even.

This would give 1v1 games an option to make it more fair. It would also take away some of the advantage of going first. I am sure this will be a little difficult to implement. Your thoughts?

Ok, I'm not really in the mood to read the whole thing, but would this support things such as 2v2 quads games? Would you be able to split the games up in such a way that in, say, a trips game, one player controls 2 of the three teams?

I am voting Republican now. The Democrats left a bad taste in my mouth -Monica Lewinski

The Idea:I like team games... tournaments even... But sometimes I think it would be fun to do the same multi Player games but have my own self as my team mate...

Those who play as Multi's do this sort of thing Illegally and usually guarantee themselves the win... or the boot... But what I propose is an option that the person who starts the game may choose... and for example:

an 8 player team game with 4 teams ... with the (Self Teams) box marked (Yes) would then become 4 teams of 2 players, each player having two starting spots on the board that they can work however they feel like.

a 6 player game with 2 teams would then be only two players each one controlling 3 starting points.

This would still function like a normal team game but would only be one player controlling ALL of his teams positions.